By Tom Carter for the World Socialist Website
Last month, the California State Assembly passed a resolution urging state educational institutions to more aggressively crack down on criticism of the State of Israel on campuses, which the resolution defines as “anti-Semitism.” The anti-democratic resolution is the latest step in the broader campaign to stifle and suppress dissent on California’s increasingly volatile campuses.
The California State Assembly is the lower house of the state legislature, consisting of 80 members. The resolution—H.R. 35: “Relative to anti-Semitism”—was passed by a vote of 66 to 80, including a majority of both Republicans and Democrats in the Assembly.
The resolution was drafted by Republican Linda Halderman and passed without public discussion. The vote on the resolution came when most students were between semesters and away from their campuses.
The resolution (available here) uses the classic trick employed by defenders of Israel’s Zionist regime: lumping together any criticism of the Israeli state’s policies or of the US government’s support for them with racist attacks on Jews.
On the one hand, the resolution denounces “swastikas and other anti-Semitic graffiti in residential halls, public areas on campus, and Hillel houses,” and denounces those who accuse “the Jewish people, or Israel, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.”
On the other hand, the bulk of the resolution is dedicated to defining criticism of the state of Israel as “anti-Semitism.” It lists the following as examples of “anti-Semitism”:
• “language or behavior [that] demonizes and delegitimizes Israel;”
• “speakers, films, and exhibits” that indicate that “Israel is guilty of heinous crimes against humanity such as ethnic cleansing and genocide;”
• describing Israel as a “racist” or “apartheid” state;
• “student-and faculty-sponsored boycott, divestment, and sanction campaigns against Israel;”
• “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination;”
• “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;” and
• “actions of student groups that encourage support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.”
This list makes clear that the accusations of anti-Semitism are a red herring, employed to attack students’ democratic rights and stifle dissent. The resolution recalls the smear campaign against German author Günter Grass and his poem “What Must Be Said” earlier this year.
Defending the poem, the World Socialist Web Site explained: “Anti-Semitism is the term used to describe racist hatred aimed at the oppression and persecution of Jews—and in the case of the Third Reich, the extermination of Jews. Grass’s criticisms of the war policy of the Netanyahu government are not directed against Jews, nor against Jews in Israel. His overwhelming concern is the well-being of both the Jewish population in Israel and the Iranian people. This is in stark contrast to the Israeli government.
“The Israeli regime does not represent the interests of the Jewish population, but rather a tiny rich and corrupt clique that has always worked closely with American imperialism.” (See Defend Günter Grass!)
The aggressive narrowness of the resolution’s definition of acceptable political discussion, combined with its broad definition of anti-Semitism, prompted the University of California to distance itself from the resolution, though without rejecting or denouncing it. “We think it’s problematic because of First Amendment concerns,” UC spokesman Steve Montiel told the San Francisco Chronicle last week.
The resolution does clearly implicate the First Amendment, which protects not only criticism of the state of Israel, but generally protects anti-Semitic hate speech as well.
Moreover, it must also be said that the State of Israel is, as a matter of fact, guilty of crimes against humanity.
To cite only a more recent example, the 574-page UN Goldstone Report published in 2010 found that the State of Israel had deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza during the 2008-2009 “Operation Cast Lead.” The invasion of Gaza saw 1,400 Palestinians killed compared with 13 Israelis killed. More than 21,000 buildings, factories, and apartments were damaged or destroyed.
Under California H.R. 35, it appears that the Goldstone report is now to be considered “anti-Semitic.”
The resolution also contains a denunciation of “suppression and disruption of free speech that presents Israel’s point of view.” This appears to be a reference to the “Irvine 11” incident last year, in which 11 students shouted down Israeli ambassador Michael Oren during his speech at the University of California at Irvine.
The 11 students shouted, “Michael Oren, you’re a war criminal,” and “You, sir, are an accomplice to genocide.” These students were later arrested, charged, and convicted of the crimes of “conspiracy” and violating Oren’s rights. (See University of California students convicted for protesting Israeli ambassador’s speech.)
The resolution goes on to state that the “Assembly recognizes recent actions by officials of public post secondary educational institutions in California [e.g., the prosecutions of the Irvine 11] and calls upon those institutions to increase their efforts to swiftly and unequivocally condemn acts of anti-Semitism on their campuses and to utilize existing resources . . . to help guide campus discussion about, and promote, as appropriate, educational programs for combating anti-Semitism on their campuses.”
On California’s campuses, as on campuses and workplaces internationally, explosive class antagonisms are increasingly apparent. Massive tuition hikes year after year coupled with job losses and skyrocketing youth unemployment present an entire generation of young people with an increasingly impossible situation.
State authorities in California, which is controlled by the Democratic Party, have watched the large campus protests that took place across state campuses over the past two years with hostility, consternation, and fear.
Over the past year, at the behest of Democratic Party officials, demonstrating students across the state have been attacked by paramilitary police squads armed with batons, tear gas, and flash grenades, with hundreds of students arrested and jailed. The world’s attention was captured when students peacefully protesting tuition hikes at UC Davis were pepper sprayed by police in cold blood.
In the face of increasing tensions and protests, state authorities are moving to clamp down on the campuses, intervening to “guide campus discussion” and criminalize criticism of both domestic and foreign policy. Under the guise of criticizing “anti-Semitism” the state government signaling that the persecution of student protesters will be tolerated or welcomed.
The resolution concludes that “strong leadership from the top remains an important priority so that no administrator, faculty, or student group can be in any doubt that anti-Semitic activity will not be tolerated in the classroom or on campus, and that no public resources will be allowed to be used for anti-Semitic or any intolerant agitation.”
——-
Commentary by the Saker: Amazing, really. I am always awed by the infinite and totally “in your face” arrogance of organized American Jewry which clearly acts in way very similar to what an occupying power would do. Think of it: if by some miracle the USA had been invaded by the Israeli military, the passing of such resolutions or laws would have been exactly what one might have expected. Except that the Israeli military never invaded the USA, so what do such resolutions tel us about the power configuration in the USA?
The other thing that always amazes me is that Zionists clearly do not think that ridicule can kill. Take, for instance, the concept of “behavior which delegitimizes Israel“: what in the world are they talking about?! It is rather hilarious how concerned the Zionists are about the “legitimacy” of Israel considering that the latter exists solely and exclusively by means of total violence locally and the kind of covert occupation imposed on the West we see in this resolution.
Lastly, the fact that all this goes practically unchallenged in the country which modestly proclaims itself to be the “the land of the free and the home of the brave” just goes to show that, in reality, the USA has truly become the land of the enslaved and the home of the cowards. How would one find another explanation for the fact that the one and only openly racist regime on the planet get that kind of worshipful treatment from a society which, at least in theory, is categorically opposed to racism? So for the really dumb and submissive, let me conclude by posting the following reminder: In 2004, Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote:
“The end of apartheid stands as one of the crowning accomplishments of the past century, but we would not have succeeded without the help of international pressure – in particular the divestment movement of the 1980s. Over the past six months, a similar movement has taken shape, this time aiming at an end to the Israeli occupation.”
In July 2008, 21 South African activists, including ANC members, visited Israel and Occupied Palestine. Their conclusion was unanimous. Israel is far worse than apartheid as former Deputy Minister of Health and current MP Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge explained:
“What I see here is worse than what we experienced – the absolute control of people’s lives, the lack of freedom of movement, the army presence everywhere, the total separation and the extensive destruction we saw….racist ideology is also reinforced by religion, which was not the case in South Africa.”
Sunday Times editor, Mondli Makhanya, went further: “When you observe from afar you know that things are bad, but you do not know how bad. Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here. It is worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of apartheid, the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid.”
Dear Saker,
I was flabbergasted like you when I read the news about California. I could not believe my eyes. I concur with what you wrote wholeheartedly, but I will add that this reinforces my total conviction that the USA uses Zionist IsraHell as cover for its shenanigans, hence it is given carte blanche to do what they please in the Land of the “Free”, who are not so Free anymore…
Best,
Joe
I would have thought the First Amendment would put an end to this nonsense if it reaches the courts
@Robert: I would have thought the First Amendment would put an end to this nonsense if it reaches the courts
The First Amendment is not violated here, at least not directly. This resolution denounces XYZ as a form of anti-Semitism, but it does not outlaw such speech. It “calls to condemn” and urges “additional actions”, but nothing specific.
This is exactly what I would expect from these lawyering and pilpulling “scribes and pharisees”: to always formulate all their decrees in such a way as to leave a cop-out in case something goes wrong.
Finally, as long as somebody’s speech has not actually affected and the issue gone to court(s) I don’t think that this can be made into a First Amendment case.
My 2cts
Replace “Israel” for “USA” in the text of this resolution, and it would never have been approved; no one would even dare to propose something similar.
@Carlo: Replace “Israel” for “USA” in the text of this resolution, and it would never have been approved; no one would even dare to propose something similar.
You are totally correct! I have lived in this country for a total of 15 years now and I am absolutely amazed by the fact that Jews and Israel are basically in a position of an occupying power. Hence the “Zionist Occupation Government” termed coined by various neo-Nazi and racists organizations in the USA. But the sad reality is that while I can dislike these organizations as much as I want, I cannot deny that fundamentally the USA is “occupied territory”. Just remember the fact that a joint session of Congress gave more standing ovations to that freak Netanyahu than to even their own President! I don’t like to use the terminology coined by Right-Wing boneheads, but in this case I have to admit that they are spot on. James Petras offered “Zionist Power Configuration” which is ok, but I cannot help it if what I see is much more akin to an occupation by a foreign power.
Mind you, the vast majority of Americans are already rather zombified, but on that topic their zombification reaches proportions which even Orwell could not have conceived of. They *never* asked themselves why they are systematically circumcised, where the fashion of constantly wearing base-ball hats (even in a car or inside a house or building) comes from, they never wonder why so many of their foods are “kosher”, or why they eat “beef frankfurters”, etc.
There is a small movement which now denounces “Israel firsters” but it is still very much on the fringe of the society. And yet, sooner or later, the absolutely boundless arrogance of US organized Jewry will eventually result into a backlash (as it has in every single place they have lived for the past 2000 years). But that will happen only when the Empire collapses. As long as it holds, no matter how badly, the zombies will not dare question that which cannot be questioned (or even mentioned).
I just get the giggles when I hear the “the land of the free and the home of the brave” line. Its just so ironic…
“where the fashion of constantly wearing base-ball hats (even in a car or inside a house or building) comes from”
Sorry, but I didn’t understand this reference either. What do baseball hats ever have to do with Zionism?
In a crowd of baseball hat wearing folks how would you see a kippa/yarmulke?
Hi, Saker;
I have pondered the relationship of U.S. policy and Israel for a long time. I have a thesis about it, which I will briefly outline here.
I think that there is what Goethe would call an “elective affinity” between America and the Jews, which is spiritually based. John Schindler of the Naval War College thinks that Israel is to America what Serbia has long been to Russia:
http://20committee.com/2012/08/16/iran-israel-and-america-on-historical-analogies/
Walter Russell Mead (CFR) believes that those who believe that “eeevil Joos” manipulate “stupid American goyim” like puppets on a string misunderstand the nature of the relationship:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/03/12/is-this-lobby-different-from-all-others/
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/03/11/the-israel-lobby-and-gentile-power/
I agree. Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, whom I greatly respect, think that if AIPAC disappeared tomorrow, and if Hollywood were to revert to Gentile ownership, that the average American would wake up, understand the injustice of current policy, and demand changes.
Would that such were so! That would make the current situation much easier to deal with!
Ordinary Americans do not support Israel in spite of its ruthless injustice, but because of it. The philo-Semitism of Americans is deeply rooted and goes back well into colonial times. The two main strands of English settlers, who determined the cultural outlook of the future United States, were the Puritans and the Scoch-Irish. I am of primarily Scotch-Irish ancestry myself, my paternal ancestor having come to the Carolinas in 1755 to fight in General Braddock’s army.
The Puritans (as you no doubt know) were a sect of Calvinism, which was an extreme Protestant sect itself – a “sect of a sect” if you will. In England, they formed the backbone of the rising English mercantile class, and were referred to (at the time) as the “English Jewry.” There are a lot of parallels between Calvinist predestination and Talmudic ideas of “chosenness.” The renewed emphasis on the Old Testament was a contributing factor, as was Calvin’s legitimation of usury and his insistence that material prosperity was a sign of God’s election and favor (the Jewish belief exactly).
The Puritans were not the most numerous of the settlers in colonial America, but they were by far the best educated, and they slowly dominated intellectual discourse in the English New World. By 1850, this cultural domination was more or less complete. Even after the Puritans lost their Calvinist faith, and became Arians and Unitarians, their offspring were responsible for most of the religious ferment in the Transcendentalist era. Mormonism and Christian Zionism are the creations of Yankee migrants to the Midwest (Joseph Smith and Cyrus Scofield, respectively).
(… to be continued)
(continued from above)
The Scotch-Irish were the dominant settlers in the old Confederacy and formed most of the “pioneers” who expanded and settled West. They were the ones who most strongly supported the idea of Manifest Destiny. Their world view was formed in the savage wars with the American Indian tribes. As long as the Indian tribes were powerful, there could never be lasting peace, because the interests of the Scotch-Irish settlers and the Indian tribes were diametrically opposed. This formed the attitude that the only way to secure a lasting peace is to annihilate your enemy.
The Scotch-Irish have long formed the backbone of the American military, and remain the primary source of recruits to this day. General Andrew Jackson (the victor in New Orleans) and President James K. Polk (the instigator and the victor in the Mexican War of 1848) are archetypes of American expansionism and Manifest Destiny.
After the Civil War, the Scotch-Irish were culturally assimilated by the Puritans, and the latter’s religious creations (such as Dispensationalism) became dominant south of the Mason-Dixon line. Also, the mercantile “hucksterism,” which had been primarily a Yankee characteristic, was also transplanted to the American South and West as well.
So, (tying this all together), modern Zionism “resonates” with Americans at a deep spiritual level. The descendants of the Puritans regard the Jews as spiritual first cousins, if not blood-brothers, and the Scotch-Irish of the South and West admire the fact that Israel deals with the Palestinians as ruthlessly as their own ancestors did with the Indian tribes. Jews are seen as “our kind of people” to a much greater extent than Eurpoeans (particulary Catholic and Orthodox) are. That is why Europeans can regard Israel with much greater critical distance than can Americans.
America’s reflexive and uncritical support for Israel, no matter what the latter does, is not a function of Zionist hypnosis. It is a “call of the blood” – “like calling unto like.” The reason the Zionist lobby seems to have magical, hypnotic powers is that there is a deep “elective affinity” to begin with.
In this, racist ideologues are wrong. Blood may be thicker than water, but spiritual affinity trumps both. Religion matters, big time.
Such is my thesis. Does this make sense to you?
@Michael: thanks a lot for an absolutely fascinating post!! It is even more interesting for me right now as I am currently deeply plunged into the philosophy of the French author Alain Soral who, just like you, sees a deep affinity between Protestantism and Judaism, at least culturally (he speaks are a “cultural Roman-Catholic” i.e. somebody who does not even believe in God, but who sees hos cultural roots in the Papacy.
I have to tell you that as an Orthodox Christian I have always dedicated my intellectual pursuits in understanding Western Christianity towards the Papacy which I always saw as *THE* arch-enemy which I needed to understand well, really well, whereas the entire Reformed movement for me was something like a “misguided attempt at undoing the Papacy by adopting all its key characteristics” and little more. Hence, I am shamefully ignorant of Protestantism and, with time, I come to realize that I need to fill this huge gap in my education.
My opinions of anything linked to the Reformed/Protestant movement will therefore inevitably be superficial, but for the little they are worth, I can share my impressions (they are not worthy being called “opinions”) with you.
First and foremost, the Protestants and the Jews have had a common enemy: the Papacy. Second, there are, as you mention, common features in the ethos of both groups. Third, Freemasonery did eventually become a fantastic federating, if not integrating, forces for these two groups. Fourth, as you mention, there are also objective historical factors which tied the two together. Finally, there is no doubt that the Reformed movement’s claim to “rediscover” the “real” and “original” Christianity was seen by many as a “return to its Jewish roots”. That last element can be illustrated in such facts as the rejection of Saint Jerome’s Vulgate in favor of the (rabbinically altered, but that they did not realize) “Masoretic” text as well as the many examples of Protestant sects “playing Jewish” i.e. observing the Sabbath, focusing on the Old Testament, etc, etc, etc, The entire idea of the “Jewish Christ” is at the core of much of this Protestant philosemitism.
And yet, I am not sure as to how much this really tells us precisely because here, in the USA, what I see is not at all a symbiosis or even a community of interest as much as the brazen and pretty much total control of one of these groups (Jews) over another (Anglos). Now, let me immediately say here that this struggle if far from over. I believe that Obama actually represents what I call the “Old Anglo Lobby” (Rothschild, Wall St.) and not pure Neocon/Ziocon interests like Dubya. I also believe that one of the main reasons why an attack on Iran has not happened yet is that because the Old Anglo Lobby does not want it because of the potential consequences of such an operation, whereas the Ziocons just don’t give a damn. Whatever may be the case, the Anglos still have a lot of money, that is certain, and my sense if the the Armed Forces are still predominantly Anglo-controlled, Rumsfeld’s purges notwithstanding. Still, I feel that the Anglos are not ideologically ready to really push back, they are not nearly as well organized and, most importantly, they have already completely lost Congress and the corporate media. So I think that they simply don’t have what it takes to turn the tide and re-gain a primacy which I believe they had at least until Ronald Reagan.
(to be continued)
@Michael: Coming back to your points, I do fully agree with you that the way the Anglos dealt with the Indians is definitely similar to what the Israelis are trying to accomplish with the Palestinians (even the use of “peace negotiations” as a tool of genocide) and I also agree that Manifest Destiny does imply a chosen people for that Destiny. There are, indeed, parallels. But once the common enemies of these two wannabe-Master-races are defeated, the question of who really is the “top dog” becomes crucial. And even though the levels of personal and corporate corruption on both sides are mind-boggling (cf. Sibel Edmonds’ testimony and book) there are those on both sides who will fight to the end to prevail over the other. In the past, this was only done in private meetings by folks like Paul Nitze or William Odom, now this kind of soft criticism is slowly creeping into the corporate media. But again, I think that this is too little too late, and I don’t think that this will reverse the tide. What I see is the Old Anglo Lobby doing its utmost to keep up the appearance of absolute philosemitism while quietly trying to defeat some of its most insane aspects. I don’t think that is going to work. Bibi can simply board a plane, and address a joint session of Congress in more forceful ways than the last time, and the entire Anglo stalling effort will collapse.
Needless to say, this entire struggle, quiet and yet brutal, is taking place away from the public eye and the mass of people are subjected to the usual zombification process which makes them so absolutely blind as to not see the *herd* of “elephants” stomping around the proverbial room and pushing each other.
Sorry for these disjointed comments, the topic deserves much better. I just wrote this down right before leaving my house. I might try to come back to this later.
Cheers!
Agree with Michael. The bond between Israel and America is so strong on a number of levels that I don’t think there’s any chance of justice for the Palestinians until the US is no longer the leading military power.
@Robert: I don’t think there’s any chance of justice for the Palestinians until the US is no longer the leading military power.
True. But the good news is that the US is really a military giant with feet of clay. There are many many many reasons for that inherent and systemic weakness of the US armed forces, and I will name only one here: its total dependence on the price of oil. It is a fact that is carefully hidden by Pentagon propagandists, but the US armed forces are totally dependent on very cheap oil. In case of a collapse of the dollar and/or a surge in oil prices the US military will find itself immediately broke, paralyzed and in a state of breakdown.
Besides, the US armed forces suffer from many other fatal weaknesses. They are grotesquely expensive, high-tech heavy, way too dependent on a peacetime civilian infrastructure to support them. The lack of education of its soldiers makes it a terrible occupation force, its internal culture of violence is a poor substitute for real patriotism and yet it is also causality-averse. Ask yourself a simple question: if you were a military commander and you were told that you had to hold on to point X on the map – would you rather be given a US Army battalion or, say, a British one? I think that the choice is rather obvious…
True, the USN and the USAF are much more sophisticated and capable branches than the USA or Marines, but the problem with them is that they cannot win wars by themselves.
The real strength of the US armed forces is the huge amount of money available to them. But that is also its main weakness as soon as this money becomes scarce.
My 2cts
Seems to me the Empire’s strength rests on two pillars; its military and the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.
My dream scenario is that Russia China and the Brics set up an alternative currency regime between themselves and invite the rest of the world to join. I suspect much of Latin America would respond given the chance.
I fear oil will continue to be priced in dollars as long as the Empire can use its military to intimidate the Middle East. The Gulf monarchies are all corrupt puppets of Uncle Sam but it’s not inconcievable they might jump ship if the SCO could offer them protection.
I think the signs are that this century is not going to be the American century; it’s going to be the Asian century.
A mulitpolar world based on a strict adherence to international law and respect for national sovereignty might appeal to a lot of states fed up with the bullying of the Empire. This is something Russia and China could stand for.
Mercouris went into the currency issue in some detail on a Kremlin Stooge thread a while back:
“The essential point about the new proposed BRICS Bank is that it is envisaged as the focus of a new international trading system that will not use the US dollar and which will cover countries that are not only trading with each other but which are economically the world’s most dynamic and which already are positioned the centre of international trade. The latter point is key. The USSR also tried to operate its own financial and trading system with its allies independently of the US dollar but the USSR and its trading partners in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA or COMECON) were entirely peripheral players in the system of international trade. The USSR’s trading system therefore posed no kind of threat or challenge to the US dollar and in fact towards the end of its existence the USSR was even starting to insist that its COMECON partners conduct their trade with it and with their partners in US dollars. By contrast China is today arguably the world’s biggest industrial producer and unarguably the world’s biggest and most dynamic manufacturing exporter. It is also a vast importer of both manufactured goods and primary products. Russia, in my opinion the other key member of the BRICS, is meanwhile the world’s biggest energy producer and exporter and is challenging to become one of the world’s leading food producers and exporters. This is fundamental given that it is precisely the fact that international trade in energy and food is conducted in US dollars, which is at the heart of the US dollar’s reserve status. If Iran, whose energy resources could conceivably be second only to Russia’s, were also to join the new system then the balance would shift even more, which is probably one reason (if not the main reason) why Iran at the moment is coming under so much pressure.
The BRICS states as Mark have been galvanised to take these steps precisely because they are becoming increasingly concerned at the way in which the US is managing its own economy and is abusing the position of the US dollar. However it is important to say that even if the US were behaving entirely properly, given the enormously greater population of the BRICS and their much greater natural resource base their economic potential is ultimately many times greater than that of the US. Given that this is so it is anyway difficult to see why they would want to go on using the US’s currency for the trade they conduct between them as opposed to using their own currencies. In other words the replacement of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency would be only a question of time even in the best possible conditions, which of course don’t exist. We are talking about normal economic evolution. Just as sterling replaced the Spanish silver dollar as the world’s reserve currency at the beginning of the nineteenth century and the US dollar replaced sterling after 1931 so at some point a BRICS currency will replace the US dollar.
The trouble is that as the example of 1931 shows these things are not always managed well and given the overweening image the US has of itself I cannot imagine that they will be this time round. Obviously the US will remain a leading economic power for a long time and there is always a chance that a dramatic event (eg. a revolution in China or a collapse in Russia) will put off what the US obviously chooses to see as the evil day. Personally I don’t think that any of these things will happen and anyway even if they do as the great French historian Ferdinand Braudel once said in the long run the long run always happens. When it does happen I suspect it will be chaotic and sudden and personally I expect it to happen much sooner than many think.”
@Saker:
Since you are now “cramming” on Protestantism, allow me to give you a few tips to help you save time. If you try to “grok” all 20,000 +++ Protestant sects, you will never finish.
To understand protestant America (and America really is the Protestant country par excellence), you primarily need to understand Calvinism and its offshoots and reactions.
The most famous theological writing in the English language is the Westminster Confession of 1646:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html
This is the Puritan manifesto, and the theological basis for the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Presbyterianism is the Scottish version of Calvinism.
Methodism is the creation of John Wesley, who subscribed to Arminianism. Arminianism is a Dutch reaction to Calvinism, which retains the basic theology, but soft-pedals the double predestination part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism
The last main American Protestant confession is the Baptists, who derived from the German Anabaptists, but adopted much of Calvinist/Arminian theology.
Lutheranism was a German import. It has always been respected in the U.S., but was never culturally influential. Same with Anglicanism. Although the Anglicans have always been the church of the rich, their cultural influence has always been very narrow.
So, focus your studies on Calvinism and Arminianism, and you will understand the historical shape of American Protestantism.
Good luck! Feel free to ask any questions you need!
did you see the video of the vote on jerusalam at the dem convention? you can see it at the electronic intifada website. it’s jaw dropping.
@Michael: thanks a lot for all your pointers which I shall follow-up!!
@Anonymous: nope, I did not see that video, nor did I find it on the EI website. Could you please send me a link? Thanks!!
@anonymous: well, I am not sure I found the video which you saw on the EI website, but I do see that the Dems are declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Which, in itself, is just crazy. Why would they declare what the capital of Israel is, but not what all the other capitals on the planet should be? But nevermind that,
What is really going on is that the Democrats who, via Obama, are still more of the Wall Street, Anglo, bankers & financiers party are desperately try to “outphilosemite” the Republicans by speaking all the right words hoping that this will do the trick. And since most Jews in the USA vote Democratic, it might help, but it is not going to decisive the big bosses of the organized US Jewry (AIPAC constituents and the like).
But the reality is this:
US political parties are scrambling over each other to court the Israel Lobby whereas the organized Jewry in the USA and the Israelis don’t court the USA or the two official parties at all.
Now you tell me – who is the boss and who is the servant here?
The answer is, I say, totally obvious.
Cheers!
On the currency issue and challenge to the dollar the essential point about the new proposed BRICS Bank is that it is envisaged as the focus of a new international trading system that will not use the US dollar and which will cover countries that are not only trading with each other but which are economically the world’s most dynamic and which already are positioned the centre of international trade. The latter point is key. The USSR also tried to operate its own financial and trading system with its allies independently of the US dollar but the USSR and its trading partners in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA or COMECON) were entirely peripheral players in the system of international trade. The USSR’s trading system therefore posed no kind of threat or challenge to the US dollar and in fact towards the end of its existence the USSR was even starting to insist that its COMECON partners conduct their trade with it and with their partners in US dollars. By contrast China is today arguably the world’s biggest industrial producer and unarguably the world’s biggest and most dynamic manufacturing exporter. It is also a vast importer of both manufactured goods and primary products. Russia, in my opinion the other key member of the BRICS, is meanwhile the world’s biggest energy producer and exporter and is challenging to become one of the world’s leading food producers and exporters. This is fundamental given that it is precisely the fact that international trade in energy and food is conducted in US dollars, which is at the heart of the US dollar’s reserve status. If Iran, whose energy resources could conceivably be second only to Russia’s, were also to join the new system then the balance would shift even more, which is probably one reason (if not the main reason) why Iran at the moment is coming under so much pressure.
The BRICS states have been galvanised to take these steps precisely because they are becoming increasingly concerned at the way in which the US is managing its own economy and is abusing the position of the US dollar. However it is important to say that even if the US were behaving entirely properly, given the enormously greater population of the BRICS and their much greater natural resource base their economic potential is ultimately many times greater than that of the US. Given that this is so it is anyway difficult to see why they would want to go on using the US’s currency for the trade they conduct between them as opposed to using their own currencies. In other words the replacement of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency would be only a question of time even in the best possible conditions, which of course don’t exist. We are talking about normal economic evolution. Just as sterling replaced the Spanish silver dollar as the world’s reserve currency at the beginning of the nineteenth century and the US dollar replaced sterling after 1931 so at some point a BRICS currency will replace the US dollar.
The trouble is that as the example of 1931 shows these things are not always managed well and given the overweening image the US has of itself I cannot imagine that they will be this time round. Obviously the US will remain a leading economic power for a long time and there is always a chance that a dramatic event (eg. a revolution in China or a collapse in Russia) will put off what the US obviously chooses to see as the evil day. Personally I don’t think that any of these things will happen and anyway even if they do as the great French historian Ferdinand Braudel once said in the long run the long run always happens. When it does happen I suspect it will be chaotic and sudden and personally I expect it to happen much sooner than many think.
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/did-democratic-delegates-just-vote-down-obama-bid-pander-aipac-jerusalem